shelf_set

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description should add context such as whether re-shelving overwrites a prior shelf, whether auth is required, that it makes a live network call, or that it prompts for confirmation. None of that is present; the description adds nothing beyond the annotations and leaves the destructive overwrite semantics unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the 27-parameter surface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a very large parameter surface, no output schema, and no stated return format or auth requirements. One sentence cannot adequately prepare an agent to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% across all 27 parameters, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description does not clarify the required 'book-id'/'shelf' pairing or note that 'started-at' and 'finished-at' are unsupported no-ops, but repeating schema text is not required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a book') plus the three target shelves, so the action is unambiguous. However it never names a sibling it differs from, and the closest neighbor, shelf_unshelve, removes books from a shelf — the description does not help an agent tell these apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence describes what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over shelf_unshelve or shelf_rate, no prerequisites (authentication, existing shelf state), and no mention of the confirmation behavior implied by the 'yes' and 'no-input' parameters.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.